Clorofila - Purpose is obvious - coded so as to equalize the game to some degree - that is, in an attempt at minimizing players "gaming" and dominating the system. I think most players can easily spot a cyclical nature to their win/loss results if they care to look.

Phread ...

1) Not coded to specific players, just a specified group that falls into whatever the parameters are - very simple to code.

2) Granted, but there are some instances that fall well beyond " improbable "...

3) Considering that only a very small minority of players discover, read, and post here, and most of us prefer not to look like ~ Whiny Boys ~ and therefor do not make a point of publicizing "issues", I'd say that we "hear" of these types of occurrences at a near alarming rate - your somewhat recent ~ Worst Dice ~ thread for instance.

Simply : Coded to minimize players from gaming the system and becoming Memoir Demigods... Obvious generally? No, although there is a definite and obvious cyclical nature to results, and of course the occasional WTF? moments... Can the game still be gamed? Absolutely - as players become experienced and skilled, they are able to overcome the ~Equalizing ~ effect.

Clorofila - Purpose is obvious - coded so as to equalize the game to some degree - that is, in an attempt at minimizing players "gaming" and dominating the system. I think most players can easily spot a cyclical nature to their win/loss results if they care to look.

Phread ...

1) Not coded to specific players, just a specified group that falls into whatever the parameters are - very simple to code.

2) Granted, but there are some instances that fall well beyond " improbable "...

3) Considering that only a very small minority of players discover, read, and post here, and most of us prefer not to look like ~ Whiny Boys ~ and therefor do not make a point of publicizing "issues", I'd say that we "hear" of these types of occurrences at a near alarming rate - your somewhat recent ~ Worst Dice ~ thread for instance.

Simply : Coded to minimize players from gaming the system and becoming Memoir Demigods... Obvious generally? No, although there is a definite and obvious cyclical nature to results, and of course the occasional WTF? moments... Can the game still be gamed? Absolutely - as players become experienced and skilled, they are able to overcome the ~Equalizing ~ effect.

Trentdep...DoW has repeatedly said that there is no special code behind the dice rolls or the card draws in the online game. True randomness is much less random (and a lot more streaky) than we give it credit for. The reason we notice the streaks so much with the Online game is because we are playing so many games in such a small amount of time, and because we get a full breakdown of die results.

The Memoir '44 Online game is random. DoW has no reason to lie about their program and no incentive to try and keep players down...luck does that without the need for outside help.

Clorofila - Purpose is obvious - coded so as to equalize the game to some degree - that is, in an attempt at minimizing players "gaming" and dominating the system [...]

I disagree.
Equalizing a game that has 2 major luck components, cards and dice? What is left to equalize? Skill? Does skill play such a big part in a match result, considering at least that both players know the rules and are minimally aware of its mechanics? I wouldn't be able to quantify it, but I'm convinced that skill plays a minor role, even if decisive in the long run (when luck tends to equalize, regarding all players).

Gaming and dominating the system? What do you mean "gaming"? And about dominating, is there a group of players in the world who consistently win all or almost all of their matches in the board game? Because in the board game there is no coding, and such domination would be perfectly free of any restriction.

About dice in particular, HamonSerrano already showed us that the overall results are according to probability: http://www.daysofwonder.com/en/msg/?th=23960&start=40
If dice would be skewed at times, coding would have to be complex enough to "unskew" them the right way.

I see no reason at all to code cards and dice results and I believe DoW's word on this matter.

The odds do us tricks when we feel harmed by luck, we all have been there, we all have despaired at times. I know I did. But there's no need to suspect of malicious activity when pure luck explains the phenomena. Luck is just a simpler, fitter and more logical explanation, in my opinion.

Ras - was hoping that you would chime in, and thanks for your thoughts.

Not sure how I feel about " True randomness is much less random (and a lot more streaky) than we give it credit for " because I do not ~ Do ~ statistical analysis to any real extent - it's something I need to ponder and - dare I say - Google...

" DoW has no reason to lie about their program and no incentive to try and keep players down ".

Well - I don't look at it as keeping anyone down - but the incentive to minimize the extent to which players can dominate an Online environment is certainly there. Is it customary for programmers to do so? I have no clue, but it certainly seems to make sense to maintain *some* control...

I might be OK with bouncing in the rankings in the 150 - 250 range, occasionally breaking the top 100, whereas I might not be OK with hovering in the 400 range. A completely uncensored ( if you will ) environment could be "played" to the extent that an average player - or even those that prefer to play the full range of scenarios, would be "locked out" - to some - granted, unknown - degree.

( On a side note : Does the Online game track dice results because it is traditional to do so for the board game ( one might include Vassal ) or just because it was a cool feature that was easily included ? )

My worst dice thread wasn't started recently. It has been updated recently.

I created the thread on Mon, 01 August 2011, last time I checked this wasn't recent.

The thread demonstrates that players can have sequences of poor battles.
However few players post when they have had sequences of exceptional dice.

Gee - sorry that offended you, but I maintain that it is a "somewhat" recent thread...

I did not write that it was *created* recently, but merely acknowledged its authorship. Having been updated recently kind of makes it "recent" does it not? Would you prefer ~ Topical ~ ? Does that help you ?

" "

Are we back to that tendency you have previously displayed to find something - anything, within my posts to criticize? To the point that you don't even take the time to at least *try* to understand what was actually written?...

By all means, have an opinion, but if you are going to comment on what I've written, I'll thank you to at least comment on ~ What I Have Actually Written ~ ...

The thread demonstrates that players can have sequences of poor battles.
However few players post when they have had sequences of exceptional dice.

Obviously, a sequence of " exceptional dice " ( let's go ahead and include very good cards ) would frequently translate to a very poor game for another player...

Therefor, I propose that ~ Very Poor ~ and ~ Very Good ~ have the same evidentiary value for the purpose of this discussion - thank you for acknowledging the concept that these are not - mostly, brought to the attention of our community at large.

Are we back to that tendency you have previously displayed to find something - anything, within my posts to criticize? To the point that you don't even take the time to at least *try* to understand what was actually written?...

By all means, have an opinion, but if you are going to comment on what I've written, I'll thank you to at least comment on ~ What I Have Actually Written ~ ...

Please I was not intentionally criticising you nor intentionaly offending you.
I am sorry that you took that from my post(s) as that was not my intention.

I do not go after your posts looking for something pick on. Seriously I do not.

I don't have any issues with you, or what you post.
I am surprised that you seem to think that I do.

If you would rather I do not post in threads that you create then ask.

Personally I'd say "chill out dude" but I think you'd find that was criticising you so I won't.

Ras - was hoping that you would chime in, and thanks for your thoughts.

My pleasure.

Quote:

Not sure how I feel about " True randomness is much less random (and a lot more streaky) than we give it credit for " because I do not ~ Do ~ statistical analysis to any real extent - it's something I need to ponder and - dare I say - Google...

I felt the same way and I'm not an expert in statistics by any stretch of the imagination. But I listened to an NPR segment where an expert talked about randomness. It was right around the time we were helping test this Online game in Beta, so I paid close attention.

This professor asked her students to secretly create a list of random numbers for her to look at. One group rolled 2 dice and wrote down the results something like 200 times. The other group made up a 'random' list of 200 numbers between 2-12 (as if they had rolled 2 dice). At the end of the class each group handed her their list without her knowing which list was from which group. She took about 2 seconds to figure out which list was which.

She explained that we assume that 'random' means no (or very few) streaks of the same result. So the group that was making up the 200 die rolls made sure that there were no more than 5 of the same number in a row because to them, randomness was an even spread of numbers. The reality of 200 rolls was that sometimes there were huge streaks of the same number...I think she said that there were 12 or 15 of the same number that came up, and it's perfectly normal. By looking at the two lists it was easy to tell which one was the real random list because what we think of as random is actually not very much like reality.

So in Memoir '44, there are going to be times when we roll 5 Grenades in a row...or 4 Stars all at once, more than once. And this is random, even though it doesn't seem like it to us.

Quote:

" DoW has no reason to lie about their program and no incentive to try and keep players down ".

Well - I don't look at it as keeping anyone down - but the incentive to minimize the extent to which players can dominate an Online environment is certainly there. Is it customary for programmers to do so? I have no clue, but it certainly seems to make sense to maintain *some* control...

I might be OK with bouncing in the rankings in the 150 - 250 range, occasionally breaking the top 100, whereas I might not be OK with hovering in the 400 range. A completely uncensored ( if you will ) environment could be "played" to the extent that an average player - or even those that prefer to play the full range of scenarios, would be "locked out" - to some - granted, unknown - degree.

DoW is pretty hands-off when it comes to rankings. If certain players figure out a way to stay at the top, the policy of the company seems to be ok with that. If they stepped in, things could get pretty messy very quickly.

For example, players who really care about their ranking might only play against low-ranked players in the hopes that they can defeat the person. Another strategy might be to become an expert in a scenario and only play that battle, thereby winning more often because they've found an effective strategy.

Personally, neither of those would be much fun for me, but each person has a different idea of fun. DoW lets us all have fun the way we want. Their "leveling" system is that high-ranked players lose huge points if they are defeated by a low-ranked player. So a person can go from #6 clear down to #150 after three tough losses! It's happened to me!!

Quote:

( On a side note : Does the Online game track dice results because it is traditional to do so for the board game ( one might include Vassal ) or just because it was a cool feature that was easily included ? )

Sorry, but I disagree that most of what you wrote would effect, or - to any real degree, minimize my original thoughts...

There have been discussions of "gaming" the system - we all know that one can beat the average on specific sides of specific scenarios - the question is : Is this minimized to any degree purely by coding it to be so ?

I suspect that the difference between a casual Board Game player and the elite, is far greater than it is on the Online game... So yeah - I think the answer to your question would be yes - it is likely that being free of any attempt to create a welcoming environment, there are players that dominate to some extent.

However, I think it is important to acknowledge that the domination factor might be minimized on the Board game, merely due to the time and logistics required to play. Clearly, one can play far more Online games, and the sheer number of games one is able to play exaggerates the problem ( which is why it makes sense to me that there would have to be *some* kind of control ).

I see no reason why this type of coding could not reflect expected dice probabilities. I can't imagine that we are going to argue that * when * the rolls are rolled is what's important. This is merely a coded process that puts the cards and dice together to attempt to skew a specific, targeted outcome - although done so in a more general set of parameters...

We aren't talking magic here... It could be as simple as recognizing that a specific account is consistently outperforming and has reached a level where "action" is considered to be necessary... Cards and dice are skewed slightly in an attempt to bring the performance back to " acceptable " levels.

I can't imagine that this has been tweaked since the last major release, ( assuming it even exists )so its ability to effect a desired effect has probably deteriorated.

And please - lets stop beating the ~ DOW Says ~ drum... Yes - DOW has stated that the dice ( and cards? ) are random. Why does this have to even be a matter of contention with that? Is it not possible that this kind of control is simply part of creating an environment like this, and therefor it doesn't even occur to DOW that it is something that needs to be acknowledged?

Riddle me this : Why would some kind of control NOT be included? Would it make more sense to have to jump out of one's proverbial arse in order to enact some control only *after* it becomes apparent that the system is being manipulated? Why not just include a control that would catch a ~ Coup ~ and put it down before it can get out of hand?

We can argue as to whether this ever becomes apparent, at what level it might come into play ( I think the evidence that wins/ losses are very cyclical suggest it is at play in a rather broad range ) or only goes into action after an account wins 99 of a hundred games, but are we really going to insist that it J U S T I S N 'T P O S S I B L E T H A T I T E X I S T S ?...

I studied a bit of probability and statistics, and also programming. I am far to be an expert, but I have some knowledge.

Correct me if I am wrong, but M44 game uses a time-dependent randomness. It simply means that a specific result depends on a specific time. That means that on the 17th of February 2013 at 12:00GMT, you will get a specific result, or combinations of results. That is one of the most simple or cheap (in code) randomness generator.

Now, asking if DOW created a bit of code to avoid people dominating the system, I sincerely doubt. The probability will help to avoid this. And if it was the case, I wouldn't see the point why they want to avoid domination.

Note that the time-dependent generator respects the central limit theorem. The result of this theorem has been shown by many players. If you look to a set of results (a very big set), you will see that all the results will tend to their average. Example: you have 1/6 to get a star. If you throw a dice 10 times, maybe, you won't get any stars. But if you throw it, thousands, of even more, of times, the number of stars that you got will tend to be the sixth of the number of thrown dices. The results tend always to an average, that is one of the big Rule of the world

I invite you to do what many players already did: doing your statistics, and you will see that there isn't anything magic of code that avoid people to dominate the system

There have been discussions of "gaming" the system - we all know that one can beat the average on specific sides of specific scenarios - the question is : Is this minimized to any degree purely by coding it to be so ?

I suspect that the difference between a casual Board Game player and the elite, is far greater than it is on the Online game... So yeah - I think the answer to your question would be yes - it is likely that being free of any attempt to create a welcoming environment, there are players that dominate to some extent.

However, I think it is important to acknowledge that the domination factor might be minimized on the Board game, merely due to the time and logistics required to play. Clearly, one can play far more Online games, and the sheer number of games one is able to play exaggerates the problem ( which is why it makes sense to me that there would have to be *some* kind of control ).

In a game like Chess, the programmers have to build in some kind of 'leveling' system so that when you select the "easy" setting, you're playing against an AI that makes mistakes or simply reacts to your moves. But once you're playing against another player, it's just you against them. Even though DoW has a luck element with the Dice and Cards, the skill part of the competition is still just you against them...there's no need to build in a handicap for stronger players.

In a contest of an experienced player vs a brand new player, the experienced person will win almost every contest of a balanced map. We've seen this time and again, to the extent that some players have been accused of hunting for cadets! There is no control.

Quote:

I see no reason why this type of coding could not reflect expected dice probabilities. I can't imagine that we are going to argue that * when * the rolls are rolled is what's important. This is merely a coded process that puts the cards and dice together to attempt to skew a specific, targeted outcome - although done so in a more general set of parameters...

We aren't talking magic here... It could be as simple as recognizing that a specific account is consistently outperforming and has reached a level where "action" is considered to be necessary... Cards and dice are skewed slightly in an attempt to bring the performance back to " acceptable " levels.

I can't imagine that this has been tweaked since the last major release, ( assuming it even exists )so its ability to effect a desired effect has probably deteriorated.

Now you're getting into conspiracy theories. Why is your theory of a skewed outcome for die rolls more likely than a simple random generator? Why would a programmer put this much energy into a system that is already random and that averages out over time?

Quote:

And please - lets stop beating the ~ DOW Says ~ drum... Yes - DOW has stated that the dice ( and cards? ) are random. Why does this have to even be a matter of contention with that? Is it not possible that this kind of control is simply part of creating an environment like this, and therefor it doesn't even occur to DOW that it is something that needs to be acknowledged?

"This level of control"...you're sounding like Morpheus from the Matrix. The system that DoW has created was made for entertainment, not control. We're left to our own choices and luck. I would still maintain that the programmers didn't put any kind of control system to level things out into this game, even a background system. They only thing they need is something that keeps the system random, and then they let us play.

Quote:

Riddle me this : Why would some kind of control NOT be included? Would it make more sense to have to jump out of one's proverbial arse in order to enact some control only *after* it becomes apparent that the system is being manipulated? Why not just include a control that would catch a ~ Coup ~ and put it down before it can get out of hand?

We can argue as to whether this ever becomes apparent, at what level it might come into play ( I think the evidence that wins/ losses are very cyclical suggest it is at play in a rather broad range ) or only goes into action after an account wins 99 of a hundred games, but are we really going to insist that it J U S T I S N 'T P O S S I B L E T H A T I T E X I S T S ?...

Show me one video game company that puts in place the kinds of controls you're talking about. I used Chess as an example earlier, so now I'll use a different video game. Let's take Black Ops...there are players with different levels of skill playing the online game. I've played the game twice against my brother, and if I went online, I would be destroyed by more experienced players. If there's a community of game players who are going to have a coup, the Black Op Players are much more likely than M'44 Online, but there's no system of control in place for that game.

So why would Memoir '44 need one? Why isn't it enough that luck goes your way sometimes and goes against you other times? I guess I'm a little bit confused why there needs to be a behind-the-scenes reason for the die rolls and card draws.

[...]
Riddle me this : Why would some kind of control NOT be included?[...]

Because it is not needed, it serves no purpose or brings any advantage, it means additional work and coding, it is not ethical.
Randomness factor, or luck, plays a big part in this game, not to the extent of Monopoly or Game of Goose for sure, but still a big part, with cards and dice. That levels results on its own, no need for extra leveling.

Your complaint of a conspiracy only involves 2 games!! My goodness, how can you come up with DOW programming a special code to 'get' those advanced players from that? You'll have to show me more facts than 4 grenades from 7 dice. I'll bet you wouldn't have even noticed if they were 4 stars, 4 armor or 4 flags. In a game once I rolled 8 dice against a single infantry unit to win the game and missed on all 8 dice! Now that is crazy odds. Hmmm... come to think of it, maybe there IS a conspiracy! NOT!

Hi trent, interested thread. I feel/think that I have bad and good games, concerning dice and cards. Sometimes my feeling is correct, sometimes my feeling is wildly incorrect. The latter usually happening when I get a big loss.

But when I start to analyse games afterwards (mostly AAR's for tournaments) I usually "get grounded" again and see that, in my opinion, the cards and dice are random. Yes, you can have bad or good average and if yours and your opponents are wildy different it does effect the outcome. Especially in short games.

But experience does count for something, I still make mistakes every game (shooting order, positioning, card sequence). Some of these have small consequences some of them large. If I play less experienced players I see more mistakes that I can capitalise on than when I play more experienced players. That's why I enjoy the tournaments with LooneyLlama so much. Positioning plays a large part in those long running battles.

trentdep wrote on Sun, 17 February 2013 09:48

I might be OK with bouncing in the rankings in the 150 - 250 range, occasionally breaking the top 100, whereas I might not be OK with hovering in the 400 range. A completely uncensored ( if you will ) environment could be "played" to the extent that an average player - or even those that prefer to play the full range of scenarios, would be "locked out" - to some - granted, unknown - degree.

Since somebody pointed out the ranking I am trackin it a little. (I do not care very much if I am up or down) I see myself bouncing up and down over a much greater diversity than 150-250 I have been up there othe first page (not for long ) but have been over 500 also. I feel the ranking can vary wildly if you accept any challenge.

On the SFTF ranking I am a little bit higher, but this is mainly due my trying to win all scenarios against Hermann. A lot of the SFTF scenarios do not favor Hermann's playing style and that gives me a slight advantage sometimes. But still also there I tend to bounce up and down over large numbers.

Can you answer me this: why do you think the game would give an advantage to me? You say it is to even things out, but wouldn't it have been more logical to give you an advantage? I am currently better ranked than you. I have even been at the first place of the ranking on several occasions during tha last few weeks. So if your theory is true, you are the one who should have gotten an advantage.

Your characterization of what I've written is so inaccurate that I have to assume that it was intentional. *I* never used the word ~ Conspiracy ~ nor have I even hinted at there being anything nefarious at play.

Ras ...

"Why is your theory of a skewed outcome for die rolls more likely than a simple random generator?"

It's not, but I think it's much more entertaining ( nor does it preclude a random generator - merely the ability to step in if needed )...

"Why would a programmer put this much energy into a system that is already random and that averages out over time?"

Again, I don't see that this would require a lot of energy - pretty simple coding. And - again, the general theory assumes that there are ways to avoid the system from being completely random and averaging out over time.

" "This level of control"... The system that DoW has created was made for entertainment, not control."

I think what I wrote was " Kind of control " And no - I am not suggesting that DOW is on a control trip, or that Memoir44 Online is anything but a money making venture. However, like any business venture, there has to be some level of control retained. Whether it's a matter of marketing ( keeping the game attractive to new customers ) or maintaining the integrity of the game ( automated control that would detect hacking ) or some combination therein, one clearly does not just throw a product to the masses and take a complete hands off approach.

" Show me one video game company that puts in place the kinds of controls you're talking about ".

Oh he*l - I'd maintain that *every* product made available to the public is controlled to some extent. And yeah - were I to attempt to play the types of games my sons play ( Black Ops included ) I would be unable to compete, but I don't see how that makes any difference - those games are not marketed towards someone like me.

I'm not sure that I could assign a specific ~ Control ~ to specific games, but games *like* Black Ops control friendly fire ( could this not create a more attractive environment to new customers, as well as prevent players from racking up some easy kills ? ), have servers that show a specific ping, allowing players with slower connections and or video cards the ability to play on a more level field etc.

Let's take MMORPGs like World of Warcraft. Controls include limiting necessary resources, making leveling up exponentially more difficult, competition for high level players ( bosses if you will ) more difficult, etc...

" I guess I'm a little bit confused why there needs to be a behind-the-scenes reason for the die rolls and card draws. "

To maintain the products marketability?

Cloro ...

" That levels results on its own, no need for extra leveling."

Clearly, it does not. The fact that there are strategies by which one can manipulate ratings has been discussed in depth.

Yeah - I'm not sure what my range really is ( like you, it's not something that I look at on a regular basis ) but it seems as if those numbers are close from what I've actually viewed.

So sure - it may be more than a 100 place swing, but I most certainly have never seen the first page, and I hope never page - well, whatever number 500th would be displayed on!

Vail...

Thanks for your thoughts. I think I've said that it wouldn't surprise me to find that all of our percentages are pretty much spot on over the long run, but that doesn't account for Cards, nor the idea that *when* the rolls appear is frequently critical.

~ Time-dependent Randomness ~ Not only does it sound cool, but it's interesting. Does the concept suggest that I will not see the result shown @ "17th of February 2013 at 12:00GMT" again until every other combination / possibility has been displayed somewhere within the game platform?

Diet - Aww man - I was so looking forward to what you would create for this thread - and for the first time ever, I'm a bit disappointed at your input...

Clearly, Der Fuehrer's problem was logistics and excessive ambition... Or maybe just a lack of logistics for the level of ambition? In any case, it clearly was not because he rolled 42% flags and only 4% grenades...

I know - considering that I do not have the skills required to Photoshop pictures I probably shouldn't be complaining, but perhaps 8 Stars from an Air Strike falling on a group of Landing Craft on D - Day would have been more appropriate?

Can you answer me this: why do you think the game would give an advantage to me? You say it is to even things out, but wouldn't it have been more logical to give you an advantage? I am currently better ranked than you. I have even been at the first place of the ranking on several occasions during tha last few weeks. So if your theory is true, you are the one who should have gotten an advantage.

Well - I think that there are several possible approaches, depending on the extent to which I want to continue to draw entertainment value from this thread...

The logic as to where an advantage would / could / should be placed would of course depend on what the parameters and triggers are / might be. It could be that controls are triggered only when someone reaches a specific number of wins over a specific range ( let's call it 30 / 35 ) or gains a specific amount of ratings points over a specific time period - or maybe over a specific amount of games. Perhaps the controls have deteriorated to the point where they are having the opposite effect that they were designed to, or just erratic results ? Or...or...or...

Make something up that works for you - the possibilities are of course endless !

But yes - on a serious note, you have most certainly placed a single piece of empirical and, at first glance - conflicting - evidence on the table.

There is no evidence for your theory of any level of control or leveling in Memoir '44 Online. While the conversations have been interesting to read, they aren't going anywhere. It looks like we aren't going to convince you that there is no system in place to control game outcomes (and there is no need for one) and you aren't going to convince us that there's a background program that has broken down and is mis-adjusting the die rolls and card draws.

This whole thing is starting to sound a bit like a scene from the Princess Bride!

Another "I'm-unlucky-so-DOW-must-be-cheating"-thread... It's like I haven't been away from the forums at all!

Here's one more reason why I'm pretty sure DOW hasn't got any "secret back door system" to control the dice/cards:
When playtesting new scenarios for release they don't have a way to fix a certain result in order to test stuff - they actually have to play through the game to test it.
For those of us who remembers the beta-testing times, this was one of the reasons many of the scenarios took so long to test.

Any way - Rasmussen is on the right track here, IMO: human brains aren't made to understand odds and chance, so many things that make mathematical sense seems counter-intuitive when we experince it subjectively. Monty Hall problem any one?

-Snip -
" Show me one video game company that puts in place the kinds of controls you're talking about ".

Oh he*l - I'd maintain that *every* product made available to the public is controlled to some extent. And yeah - were I to attempt to play the types of games my sons play ( Black Ops included ) I would be unable to compete, but I don't see how that makes any difference - those games are not marketed towards someone like me.

I'm not sure that I could assign a specific ~ Control ~ to specific games, but games *like* Black Ops control friendly fire ( could this not create a more attractive environment to new customers, as well as prevent players from racking up some easy kills ? ), have servers that show a specific ping, allowing players with slower connections and or video cards the ability to play on a more level field etc.

Let's take MMORPGs like World of Warcraft. Controls include limiting necessary resources, making leveling up exponentially more difficult, competition for high level players ( bosses if you will ) more difficult, etc...

DoW does, indeed, have these kinds of controls in place and they make no secret about it. Let's go through the list of these:

1) Ranking system - players are ranked in a global system based on how their wins and losses. These scores are adjusted depending on the level of their opponent and to a lesser degree, the level of win/loss. The formula for this ranking system is available to look at but is way above my math knowledge.

2) Achievements - when you do something predetermined, you earn an achivement. This is posted in your account and many of them are well explained so that you know what you have to do.

3) Dice rolls - the dice rolls are generated randomly. The program for these rolls have no idea who they are generating the results for and no idea what you 'want to see'. The program has no memory to know if it just repeated something or if there was a long string of the same result. Each time your game calls for a roll, a random result it supplied. There is some system in place to record the die results for the final results tables.There is no background program tracking who gets what!

4) Card Draws - another random program that keeps track of what cards are available and which ones have been played already. Again, this is a random program that simply sets the deck and does not know who is getting which card. There is no background program watching to make sure the higher ranked person gets certain cards (good or bad).

5) Military Rank system - the promotion system is just like your example from World of Warcraft where you said it is, "making leveling up exponentially more difficult". The different ranking requirements increase in complexity and difficulty but they are set the same for everyone.

So in a sense, you're right...there are some background controls set in place. But they are all clearly explained and they are not influencing individual battls. When two players enter a battle, it's just them, the luck of the dice or cards, and their skill. DoW doesn't need to put anything else in place.

Another "I'm-unlucky-so-DOW-must-be-cheating"-thread... It's like I haven't been away from the forums at all!

Here's one more reason why I'm pretty sure DOW hasn't got any "secret back door system" to control the dice/cards:
When playtesting new scenarios for release they don't have a way to fix a certain result in order to test stuff - they actually have to play through the game to test it.
For those of us who remembers the beta-testing times, this was one of the reasons many of the scenarios took so long to test.

Any way - Rasmussen is on the right track here, IMO: human brains aren't made to understand odds and chance, so many things that make mathematical sense seems counter-intuitive when we experince it subjectively. Monty Hall problem any one?

Nyga...

Please - respect the concept that one might have developed a theory or two of dice / card manipulation without implying that it was ~ Cheating ~, and while actually being somewhat successful...

I'm not sure that anything you said about play testing is of consequence - I have not suggested that this is a control that can be manipulated on a game by game case, but rather actually part of the program coding and triggered by some unknown - perhaps imaginary or otherwise non existent, parameters.( There's the CliffsNotes version for you ).

Cool! At least we have established that the concept of ~ Controls ~ is real...

I get that most of you think that the inclusion of dice / cards would be sacrilegious and offensive - I don't, and therefor find it rather easy to assume that they are indeed included.

Once one is beyond the idea that cards / dice must be ~ Absolutely, At All Times, And Completely ~ random, it just simply makes sense.

Anyway - Ponder me this ( did I use that previously? If so, just sub Riddle Me This ) How would Memoir ( the program ) recognize and defend itself against a hack that could manipulate dice and or cards?

Another "I'm-unlucky-so-DOW-must-be-cheating"-thread... It's like I haven't been away from the forums at all!

Here's one more reason why I'm pretty sure DOW hasn't got any "secret back door system" to control the dice/cards:
When playtesting new scenarios for release they don't have a way to fix a certain result in order to test stuff - they actually have to play through the game to test it.
For those of us who remembers the beta-testing times, this was one of the reasons many of the scenarios took so long to test.

Any way - Rasmussen is on the right track here, IMO: human brains aren't made to understand odds and chance, so many things that make mathematical sense seems counter-intuitive when we experince it subjectively. Monty Hall problem any one?

Nyga...

Please - respect the concept that one might have developed a theory or two of dice / card manipulation without implying that it was ~ Cheating ~, and while actually being somewhat successful...

I'm not sure that anything you said about play testing is of consequence - I have not suggested that this is a control that can be manipulated on a game by game case, but rather actually part of the program coding and triggered by some unknown - perhaps imaginary or otherwise non existent, parameters.( There's the CliffsNotes version for you ).

Sure I get that your main point wasn't necessarily about your own luck - but this type of thread usually only arise when people loose to bad dice or cards. If you had won those two games you posted at the top would we have had this thread? Any way, I'm starting to see a pattern here...

As for your main point, I'm sorry I didn't read the thread thoroughly enough, so I might have missed a few of your elaborations.
But if you think DOW would spend time developing some sort of manipulation that WASN'T useful in a single game (for use in game-testing for instance) then I really think you are venturing into conspiracy theory territory.

Cool! At least we have established that the concept of ~ Controls ~ is real...

I get that most of you think that the inclusion of dice / cards would be sacrilegious and offensive - I don't, and therefor find it rather easy to assume that they are indeed included.

Once one is beyond the idea that cards / dice must be ~ Absolutely, At All Times, And Completely ~ random, it just simply makes sense.

Anyway - Ponder me this ( did I use that previously? If so, just sub Riddle Me This ) How would Memoir ( the program ) recognize and defend itself against a hack that could manipulate dice and or cards?

Wauw...
Again, what's the point of this? And what does this have to do with the randomizer or DOW? This isn't a poker server, there isn't any money to be gained by ANYONE, and it's not like it's a big enough game online to get you any kind of reputation if you hacked it. Could you hack DOW's servers, sure...

About the sequence "infantry assault" + "Assault centre" in this scenario:
If the allied player has these two cards, you should almost always see them on his first two turns (with maybe a few exceptions).
So when an opponent has these, you will always know, contrary to certain other cards like counter attack and attack left for example.
So while that combination has the same occurrence, it will seem much less current because you will not always know.
This might give you a false image of stacked cards.

About card quality advantage to one or another player:
You did not have bad cards that game. You had two DFHQ and one recon en force. Those are really not bad cards for the axis troops in this scenario. Granted, the allied cards were extremely good for a strong opening in this scenario, so you might not have noticed how good your own cards were.
This might have given you even more of a false image of stacked cards.

About dice quality.
If I remember correctly, the dice on infantry were about the same, that is around 50 percent. Your dice were slightly better, but that is normal since you got in some hits from flags. So normal results against infantry. As for my results against your artillery: I scored 2 hits with 4 dice. That is better than the average, but on such a small sample (4 dice), it is perfectly reasonable to have such a variation on the average. The chances to get 2 hits with 4 dice are probably bigger than you realise.

So, according to me, there was nothing out of the ordinary during our game. I was just lucky to start the game with 3 excellent cards (as did you) and I was so lucky to kill your artillery with only 4 dice. Neither of which is so unlikely that it should set of alarms.

Cool! At least we have established that the concept of ~ Controls ~ is real...

I get that most of you think that the inclusion of dice / cards would be sacrilegious and offensive - I don't, and therefor find it rather easy to assume that they are indeed included.

Once one is beyond the idea that cards / dice must be ~ Absolutely, At All Times, And Completely ~ random, it just simply makes sense.

Anyway - Ponder me this ( did I use that previously? If so, just sub Riddle Me This ) How would Memoir ( the program ) recognize and defend itself against a hack that could manipulate dice and or cards?

I will repeat my post from earlier...

3) Dice rolls - the dice rolls are generated randomly. The program for these rolls have no idea who they are generating the results for and no idea what you 'want to see'. The program has no memory to know if it just repeated something or if there was a long string of the same result. Each time your game calls for a roll, a random result it supplied. There is some system in place to record the die results for the final results tables.There is no background program tracking who gets what!

4) Card Draws - another random program that keeps track of what cards are available and which ones have been played already. Again, this is a random program that simply sets the deck and does not know who is getting which card. There is no background program watching to make sure the higher ranked person gets certain cards (good or bad).

And I will point out again that once the game is started, it's just two people against each other. You deal with the luck of the dice and the cards, but there is nothing in the background 'evening things out' between players. I don't know if I can say it any more clearly!

Diet - Aww man - I was so looking forward to what you would create for this thread - and for the first time ever, I'm a bit disappointed at your input...

Clearly, Der Fuehrer's problem was logistics and excessive ambition... Or maybe just a lack of logistics for the level of ambition? In any case, it clearly was not because he rolled 42% flags and only 4% grenades...

I know - considering that I do not have the skills required to Photoshop pictures I probably shouldn't be complaining, but perhaps 8 Stars from an Air Strike falling on a group of Landing Craft on D - Day would have been more appropriate?

Cloro ...
" That levels results on its own, no need for extra leveling."
Clearly, it does not. The fact that there are strategies by which one can manipulate ratings has been discussed in depth.

I was referring to overall game performance, not the rankings. And I was under the impression that you were not referring specifically to the rankings either, when you brought this issue up. Because if the problem are those, then DoW would have to do A LOT more than coding equalizing procedures.

" Show me one video game company that puts in place the kinds of controls you're talking about ".

Oh he*l - I'd maintain that *every* product made available to the public is controlled to some extent. And yeah - were I to attempt to play the types of games my sons play ( Black Ops included ) I would be unable to compete, but I don't see how that makes any difference - those games are not marketed towards someone like me.

I'm not sure that I could assign a specific ~ Control ~ to specific games, but games *like* Black Ops control friendly fire ( could this not create a more attractive environment to new customers, as well as prevent players from racking up some easy kills ? ), have servers that show a specific ping, allowing players with slower connections and or video cards the ability to play on a more level field etc.

Let's take MMORPGs like World of Warcraft. Controls include limiting necessary resources, making leveling up exponentially more difficult, competition for high level players ( bosses if you will ) more difficult, etc...

I keep thinking about this part of the debate...so I'm going to take us back here for a bit.

The types of Control you're talking about that these games use (friendly fire, pings to help players with slower video cards, limiting resources, increasing the difficulty of leveling up, competition for high level players, etc) are totally different than the type of control you're talking about Memoir '44 Online having. It's like comparing apples to oranges.

On one hand you have controls that regulate the rules of how the game works for a solo experience. In your example of World of Warcraft, you have an AI program that uses better moves as the player levels up, and enemies that have better stats. At no point do you have the game manipulating the chances of higher level players hitting the enemy!

Again, I don't think there is a single video game that manipulates your chances of hitting, simply because you're a higher ranked or higher level player. In some games there are outside forces affecting your chances to hit (better armor on enemy bosses, better stats, etc) but the actual randomizer is left alone!

In Memoir '44 there are no 'leveling up' systems for your skill. You can't go into the game and buy better guns for your units to increase your chances of hitting a target. The only way to improve is to practice and make better choices. The game is not designed to level the playing field for you; that's why better players often take the harder side...because the game won't even out your chances by manipulating die rolls or card draws.

Once again, I would argue that there is no video game out there that modifies your chances based on your skill level to even things out. Memoir '44 Online is no exception.